It's worth a try.

Money for bombs & bullets, but not for decent housing and jobs.

Money for corporate & bank bailouts, but NOT for free education for our youth.

Money for Congress to vote themselves salary raises, but barely enough for decent medical care for the working poor.

C'mon people, it's not hard! Learn to share and be nice to each other!

You learned that in kindergarten, you were taught that on the playground.

it's even in your religious scriptures!

If you could do it as a child, you can do it as an adult.

It's like learning to walk, talk, feed yourself and use the toilet.

Once you learn, you never forget.

 

Jimmy Kimmel summed it up nicely:

People who would oppose that are like "the guy who brings five napkins to a potluck."

 

To share is not the same as to thieve. Otherwise a common mugger could just as easily make the same argument you did above.

 

Your first sentence is a moot point that has nothing to do with the OP. Thus, your second sentence is just a lone absurdity.

 

Money for this is better than money for that. Except it's not your money. It's mine.

 

No matter how much money or how little money we earn, there are always people who have more and people who have less in this this country and other countries.

Consider this. If you believe the rich should give you their money, how about you giving some of your hard earned money to people who are much worse off than you. Most of us have cell phones, cars, TVs houses and adequate food. Many people in this world do not. How about you giving up our luxuries and a bit of our extravagant diet to people who really need it.

That is equivalent to the rich in the US providing more to those who are less fortunate. I am all for charity, but I believe we need to really think about what we are wishing for.

I am very opposed to demand the rich pay more merely because they can. You call it "their fair share" as if that defines the difference.

 

Is it? Because money is a concept, not a concrete reality like a tree or a stone. The recent economic turn downs with Wall St., the housing market and S & L should tell you that.

Your money and my money goes into a system that makes it pretty comfortable to walk into any grocery store and pick up a product because there's a pretty good guarantee that it won't poison you.

your money and my money picks up the slack for infrastructure, security, trade, etc., when large corporations are on one hand recognized as human beings but don't have to pay full federal taxes like one.

Hopefully, you get my point as to why the OP is a valid option to the status quo.

 

Maybe this will help explain the major flaw in your concerns. http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/its-worth-a-try.588345/#post-1072663270

 

The OP is basically a free stuff rant dressed in self righteous morality.

 

There is no flaw. We are rich compared to people in some other countries. There is no more justification for taking from someone richer than us than there is us being forced to give up our relative riches to someone else. It is all relative.

 

We are "rich" because the land that became America was abundant in food, water and resources. The native inhabitants lived WITH this for a milennia and flourished in various NATIONS. Then the Europeans came along and essentially f***ed things up in just under 500 years.

I previously explained to you that the concept of taxes is so that everyone puts skin in the game to pay for the security of the lifestyle you grew up with. With a large, diverse population that is based on economic and social competition, sharing the wealth is a necessity to obtain a decent life for all. Otherwise, we would still have a monarchial society and it's feudal cousin based on your premise. Why should those who either through personal or inherited wealth "force" everyone else to live just to serve without decent housing, education, etc.? That's a large part of our current society...and the basis for why things are deteriorating. That it's easy to be greedy and selfish but hard to share has never made sense to my adult self.

 

Wealth redistribution discourages motivation.

 

Baloney! The nation is run by a large portion of "inherited" wealth....the alleged "job creators" who abhor the federal gov't. Well, 24 years of reaganomics (trickle down) has screwed this country royal.....you can have all the motivation in the world...but if the people in charge are taxing you out of existence and then provide no job opportunities, you end up either committing suicide or going on welfare to feed yourself and/or family. Recent reports show how people are working jobs at 1/3 what they use to get in salary. Stimulus checks gave them the ability to pay some bills and get those jobs. A matter of fact, a matter of history.

 

Right and now you’ve flooded the market with money but you haven’t offset those funds with any increase in productivity. Therefore the ONLY inevitable consequence will be an increase in demand and a decrease in supply which leaves no other option except an increase in the price. Otherwise known as inflation.

 

So true. It's the MO for most liberals.

 

Why should I work my tail off if the government is going to give it people who did not work as hard? Why shouldn't I be able to leave that hard earned money to my children?

 

1. the market is "flooded" with debt caused by massive "bailouts" of "too big to fail" banks, and tax breaks for corporations to outsource their business.

2. Do you actually expect for things to magically correct within less than a year that it took to create this mess? Puh-Leeze.

3. Inflation? How much money produced as to how much money is actually in the system? You had Wall St. making record profits while everyone else has been SCREWED over the last year? Inflation is tabulated in the scheme of things at the end of each year....but as usual, the GOP can spend like drunken sailors, then wail like banshees when out of office about deficits, etc.

 

1. Who said you couldn't leave an inheritance to your kids?

2. Do you think you work as hard as the people who make sure your streets/office are clean? As hard as the people who collect the garbage so it's not piled up in front of your house/apartment? As hard as the people who take the raw materials that are in the earth that makes this discussion possible? As hard as the people who actually harvest the food for your supermarkets? And when "management" and Wall St. decide that it's economically beneficial to lay these people off for shareholder profits, what are they suppose to do?

Think it through.

 

Not as much.

I likely worked harder. Nothing was given to me on a silver spoon. My father died a few days before I was born. I worked my way through college and there were days when I did not know when I would get my next meal. I was perpetually tired.

After I graduated, I still worked hard. I have earned every penny of what I have now. Why should I give up a penny of it to someone who has not worked as hard?

Don't lecture me about work. I know work.

 

Well there is no such thing as too big to fail. With that being said, the banks were bailed out because the banks had been FORCED to lower lending standards which is what led to the 2008 housing crash. And they were forced to do so by the government.

On the other hand those people who KNEW they couldn’t afford those homes were not forced to apply for those loans.

And no it’s not going to magically correct. It’s not going to correct at all because there’s going to end up with major inflation and we better pray the democrats stop their absurd cash handouts or it’s going to be hyperinflation.

 

1. If you are complaining that they would have to pay inheritance tax, that's just tough cookies, because it's INCOME. What I propose in the OP does NOT change that in any way, shape or form. "Sharing" doesn't automatically equate half all the time....if one kid has 5 gumballs and he gives one to the kid who has none, he's still up 4 gumballs. Not a problem, unless you're greedy or selfish.

2. Let's assume for the sake of argument that you are not just constructing some tale to justify your greed; your attempt at one-up man-ship does not justify your disdain for the poor and disenfranchised. (likely worked harder than a miner? ) you're not the only person who worked hard or missed meals....hell, my uncle would tell me such stories growing up at the tail end of the Depression...his way out was through the military and the G.I. Bill and subsequent civil service job. My grandfather grew up in Jim Crow South with only a 6th grade education....worked his butt off and raised 5 kids. When jobs were scarce, soup kitchens and charity were no shame to many...expect mabye folk of your mindset who what, went hungry rather than accept a hand up?

Obviously your mom worked as did countless other mothers.....if no relatives helped with bills, and your job at scale certainly didn't cover tuition fully, what was the deal? community college is cheaper, but still there were gov't loans....you didn't take those? If you did, and you were lucky enough NOT to have your job(s) downsized, then you were lucky. Others are not.

You indicate that anyone who takes welfare or any type of social service help hasn't worked hard to earn their keep? Tell me, when we went throught the near recessions under Reagan and GW Bush, and all those people who did just as you did or better were suddenly out on their butts at no fault of their own....were you condemning them for using gov't assistance?

No one is asking you to put a dent in your income....but pennies on the dollar wouldn't kill you. You gripe like a Wall Street guy complaining about a transaction tax after they made 6 figures. that's just greed.

So easy to be greedy and resentful, so hard to be understanding and share.

 

The more sheepish Republicans have unfortunately been trained to react violently to the mere thought of government spending that benefits anything except the military, corporations and Israel.

 

1.Bull! the CRA did not "force" banks to make bad loans, it "forced" them to treat everyone equally...meaning black folk with the same economic situation should get the same loan consideration as their white counterparts. Some banks just padded their porfolios with bad loans on purpose, mixed them with good loans and then sold those packages on the open market to make a profit. That was fraud! They weren't too big to fail, the gov't didn't have the cojones to can the corrupt management and replace them with decent people/banks.

2. Do some research regarding "predatory lending" and then get back to me when your up to speed.

3. Your last paragraph is just a side stepping, opinion only, stubborn rehash of an assertion I already logically disproved.

 

You must be responding to someone of whom I IA'ed as incapable of a rational, logical and honest discussion beyond a certain point.

 

Why should I give anything to someone who did not work as hard as I did.

Even better. Why shouldn't I choose who to give it to since I am the one who worked for it?